Yes, Trusted Computing is used for DRM

Yes, Trusted Computing is used for DRM

"Ever since the Trusted Computing Group went public about its plan to put a security chip inside every PC, its members have been denying accusations that the group is really a thinly-disguised conspiracy to embed DRM everywhere. IBM and Microsoft have instead stressed genuinely useful applications, like signing programs to be certain they don't contain a rootkit. But at this week's RSA show, Lenovo showed off a system that does use the chips for DRM after all.

The system is particularly frightening because it looks so simple. There's no 20-digit software key to type in, no dongle to attach to the printer port, no XP-style activation. (Is this what Bill Gates was thinking of when he said in his keynote that security needs to be easier to use?) The user interface is just a Thinkpad, albeit one of the new models with an integrated fingerprint sensor."

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2006/02/yes_trusted_com.html

If these fools can't build programs without buffer overflows, what makes them think that a "signed" executable is going to be safe? It is a great way to create a bottleneck for independent programmers. As far as I hve been able to tell, the only thing the "security chip" will provide is a way to identify a unique computer. That's far from the most important aspect of security.


Daniel

That's far from the most important aspect of security.

Click to expand...

Ah, important to YOU or important to THEM? cause those are two very different lists of important things.

MS is only interested in security as it applies to their PR and advertising.

Since they know that most of their user base couldn't care less and wouldn't dream of paying a few extra bucks for a machine that doesn't have these problems they can continue to pay lip service to it and release patches as they get around to it. Security has a negligible negative impact. Ah, but DRM will result in partnerships with other big corporations that let them lock out competition and get a kick back for things that you now have to pay a subscription for

*sigh*

When will they ever learn? Hardware or software, it doesn't matter, somebody will crack it... so stop trying to prevent honest customers from enjoying media they BUY.

Since I've written and released open source freeware, the appearance of "security chips" and supporting OS that require that applications are "signed" is frightening. It's like telling MS that they have the key to "accidently" kill their competitors, but trusting them not to do it. If, on the other hand, they give the machine user the option of saying "go ahead and run anyway" the whole point of the signed software is moot. From that point you can not be sure the machine has not been subverted.

Grumble grumble grumble.

Daniel

People keep trying to tell us that DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Since there are no efforts to give paying consumers more rights, it's more accurately called Digital RESTRICTIONS Management.

I'm trusting computers less and less as big companies try to hide more from the users. The Sony endorsed rootkit, MS hidden and "super hidden" files, et al is about them trusting our machines, not us.

I've always seen DRM as an outgrowth of the modern obsession over intellectual property - another sign of competitive decline.

DRM has always seemed like little more than a thinly-veiled scheme to forcibly extract more money from the average consumer. Instead of buying an album, movie, book, game, software, etc (and thus some vague license to utilize its content), the industry will have us all perpetually renting content... conveniently costing consumers more than the price of outright purchase. Forget lending a friend a book or album - it will be tightly bound to some device.

The open computer system is also likely to be a dying breed - it's too dangerous to the entrenched interests that have befcome too large, too cumbersome to respond to market forces. Witness the technology industry's eagerness to belly up to the media industry ... which has never made a fraction of what the tech industry has, but they're seen as a savior nonetheless.

Copyrights, trademarks, and patent law have been twisted into things they were never envisioned to be. Copyright was originally 15 years... now it's life of the creator plus however many more years that congress tacks on every decade or so at the behest of the media giants. Patents were also intended to be limited - mainly to encourage inventors to disclose their inventions in exchange for limited immunity from duplication. Trademarks were supposed to be a way to protect the identity of a company or product. Nowadays, both copyrights have been twisted into permanence... the applicants knew the deal when they applied, but when material created by exceptionally powerful media interests is about to enter the public domain, copyright is conveniently extended by another 15 years or so. Patents are another mess... patent firms seem to scheme for ways to apply obscure patents to existing technology or methods so they can coerce others into paying retroactive licensing fees under threat of litigation; nevermind some of the nonsense patents that have been issued lately.

Creative people are supposed to be creative. They're entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but not forever. Noone should have a lock on specific knowledge for eternity. I see "tollbooth economies" as an indicator of overall decline. Noone has confidence in innovation, so they lock things down to extract as much as possible from what they already have and try to fend off competition from a defensive stance...

I found this story by Richard Stallman to be rather telling about where society seems to be going. The powers that be seem to be moving towards "perfect" copyright enforcement for short-term gain; ultimately society will be impoverished by such an approach... which is more about keeping the middle men fat and happy (And squeezing both ends) than it is about protecting the innovators and creative people as copyright intended. Hopefully things will never get that bad, but as the footnote indicates, there is some foreshadowing...

EDIT : Here's another paper from Richard Stallman that's pure essay rather than allegory. I agree with it almost without reservation.

I have an interesting story about Stallman. Unfortunately it puts him in a strange light. Off topic a little.....

I wrote a program that could be used with the X-10 company's powerline control system. I wrote it to run under Linux and other Posix compliant OSes. It lets your computer control your lights and power outlets. I made the code open source with a simple license saying anyone could use it for anything, but could not sell it or represent it as their own.

Stallman contacted me. He tried the program and was delighted. He was using it to remotely powercycle computers in a compter center. He had a problem. It's license was not his GPL. He asked me to release the code under the GPL.

I politely replied that I did not wish to use the GPL, and that the current license was very generous. He replied with a detailed set of reasons why I should use GPL instead. I again, politely refused and reitterated that he was welcome to use the program.

His final note was that he was very sorry, they would not be using my program within the GNU project because it was not GPL software.

He was either being petulant or he was standing up for his principles. I don't know which. Either way, he lost out.

Which brings me back to DRM.

The principle behind copyright is that the creator of a work should be able to benefit from it. In reality the media companies are making far larger percentages of the profits than the talent makes. That is what the DRM is protecting. The 1 cent per copy that the artist gets is nothing compared to the $19.99 that Sony gets.

So are the media companies protecting the artists, or just themselves?

Daniel

Here is an excellent speech on why DRM is a bad idea on almost every level from Cory Doctorow of the EFF, given at Microsoft in July of 2004.